Louis
Posts: 6436
Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Ghost,
First, an apology, the Pauli exclusion principle bit was part of another sentence I never finished, note full stop. My bad, should have self edited, obviously didn't. Glaring cock up on my part.
Second, you are right I should have bulleted it, but I typed it off the cuff at work in a few minutes of my lucnch break, just like I'm typing this now while something is bubbling away in my fume hood. Some of us have to do real science as opposed to making shit up (based on things we clearly don't understand) to support the inane witterings of bronze age shepards as being weally weally twue because we can't deal with a literal reading of our favourite bedtime fairy tale book being bullshit. A Powerpoint presentation this won't be!
Apart from that:
| Quote | Absolutely. Hybrid orbitals, sigma and pi bonds, and bonding and antibonding orbitals all comprise subcategories of molecular bonds. Molecular bonds form between atoms, so why use these terms for bonds within atoms?
Two reasons.
First, visual aids help the learner navigate the cold waters of mathematical abstraction. Planetary interactions may differ from chemical bonds, but they inhabit a fundamentally quantum world, so it's best to use the language of quantum mechanics, even if the correspondence is imperfect. |
No, hybrid orbitals are explicitly NOT molecular orbitals, they are combinations of atomic orbitals. Sigma and pi orbitals are molecular orbitals, an sp3 orbital (for example) is an atomic orbital. Again you are clearly repeating concepts you are reading from Google/a book, that you don't understand. You were pretty clear about your choice of hybrid orbitals and "bonding orbitals in "atoms"" as descriptions of the behaviour of extraterrestrial orbits. I call shennanigans!
Also antibonding orbitals are molecular orbitals, this is true, but they are absolutely NOT a subcatagory of molecular bonds. Shennanigans again. This is entirely the problem with you trying to use quantised orbitals as extraterrestrial orbits. In forming a molecular bond you combine two (or more) atomic orbitals to give the corresponding molecular orbitals. You don't lose orbitals, you form a bonding/antibonding orbital pair with the higher energy orbital being the antibonding orbital (another facet of the underlying quantum mechanics).
Population of the antibonding orbital by an electron weakens the chemical bond. The analogy with your interplanetary orbitals being quantised is problematic for this and many other reasons. If you are trying to say your orbits in space are quantised, and you expressedly are, then you have to deal with the quantum mechanical behaviour of such objects. Your analogy was with atomic/molecular orbitals. Although you clearly pulled this analogy out of your arse, it has consequences. In addition, simply having the orbits quantised has consequences. If you are saying that your planetary orbits are quantised gravity and that the reason things orbit the earth is because of a quantum mechanical bond between them analogous to the chemical bond, this problem still exists. Where are the corresponding anti-interplanetary-bonding orbitals, and what happens when they are populated by one of your dreamt up macroscopic quantum objects? Are there non bonding orbitals too, and if so, what do they contain?
You are also missing the point. You are claiming quantum behaviour for macroscopic objects, waaaaaaay beyond the decoherence limit, and you have not in any way demonstrated that this happens. The "solar system as atom" is an AWFUL visual aid because it bears no resemblence to what is observed. Even the Bohr atom fails to match up.
Again, look at distances, sizes and the behaviour of the atom and the subatomic particles. Look again at the quantum mechanical consequences of the relative strength of the forces. The reason atoms behave like atoms is in part due to the strength of the forces holding them together (I noticed you ignored this earlier). It's also due to the nature of the force involved, after all is gravity repulsive at short distances? No it's not. You REALLY want to think why that is. The properties of the atom that you desire to shoe horn into your model are in part direct consequences of the short distance repulsive nature of the electromagnetic force.
You are, by the way quite correct that in certain metal complexes there is trigonal pyramidal bonding (or octahedral, or square planar etc) but you are forgetting a really key point. WHY are there bonding orbitals around the "equator" of the molecule? In the case of a square planar molecule it's because there are non bonding pairs of electons along the vertical axis of the molecule that repel the bonding pairs. The same for octahedral/trigonal pyramidal but in those cases it's other bonding orbitals.
However, your little aside totally missed the point, and is either yet another mistake on your part or an attempt at misdirection. If all the orbiting objects align in a concentric plane around the earth they cannot be in orbits that are in any way analogous to atomic/molecular orbitals. The bonding and non bonding orbitals around a centrally bonded atom don't do this because they repel. You missed the point of my mentioning VSEPRT and why it demolished your "atom as solar system" analogy.
Also if you want to use things like trigonal pyramidal bonding/octahedral bonding, then you fuck up again. These are molecular bonds, using molecular otbitals NOT atomic orbitals. Also the atoms don't wander about all over the shop in the molecule they remain in their bonded positions (unless there is some kinetic vs thermodynamic issue and the molecules rearranges to give the most favourable steric/electronic arrangement). The planets orbiting earth in your model are moving, they don't retain fixed positions, and they certainly don't smear in anything like the same way an electron does in an orbital. Like Eric and I have tried to get you to do, understand WHY macroscopic objects have narrower wave functions than microscopic objects.
Oh and while we're at it, if you think for one second that your "solar system as atom" model works with trigonal pyramidal/octahedral type molecular bonding (leaving aside the molecular bonds within an atom bullshit, which I note you airily handwave away) please explain why we don't see a cosmic Jahn-Teller effect, and why interstellar objects move in a way that atoms in molecules don't (even from earth's perspective), and atoms in molecules move in a way that interstellar objects don't.
The simple point is you are trying to claim specific quantum properties of electrons/atoms/molecules to make an analogy with your quantum astronomy claims. They don't work for several reasons as I have mentioned, but a REAL biggie is the simple fact that, as you said, gravity is an important force on this scale. Bingorooni my Ghostly chum. You are dealing with garvity NOT electromagnetism. The properties of the atoms you need, even the type of hybridisation you need, are precisely due to the nature of the electromagnetic force. Gravity don't work that way or we'd have had quantum gravity worked out in the 60's.
You are trying to claim that huge objects are quantised in an analogous manner to an electron when there is no evidence they are (they don't fulfil the criteria for a Bose-Einstein condensate or a neutron star, the only "huge" macroscopic quantum objects I can think of off the top of my head). You are also trying to claim that gravity is quantised in such a way that orbitals form betwen massive extraterrestrial objects and earth ("gravity bonds" if you will) when again there is not evidence of this, and even worse the forces of electromagnetism and gravity are so different in their macroscopic and microscopic behaviour that the "solar system as atom" analogy is worthless and the behaviour of your "gravity orbits" would be wildly different from what you need to be the case.
You also seem to be missing the point that the electron doesn't sit in an orbit and whizz about, the orbit IS the electron in a very real sense. The electron is not some classical nugget that you might find in a certain region, the orbit is a description of the nature of the wavefunction for that electron at that energy. This doesn't work for planets, calculate the wavefunction of Jupiter or the sun (good luck), and you'll find out why. A fact I note you have ignored. Also, if your model is atom-like, why are the orbits of most extraterrestrial objects clearly not centred on "the nucleus" i.e. earth.
Oh yes, and if the force pulling these things about the earth is not gravity (related to mass, so it can't be) or electromagnetism (related to charge, so it can't be) and the strong and weak forces are out of the question (scale) what is it? Why hasn't it been observed at all, and why does it appear not to exist (i.e, the mostions of planets and electrons can be explained perfectly in other ways)?
So Ghost, "solar system as atom" gets an F- for success, but an A++ for obfuscatory erroneous bullshit. Even with your happy handwaving.
I am beginning to get a hunch about you Ghosty my lad. It runs roughly thus, you do a minmum of reading to hand wave a "model" up, piss about with Mathematica and whip a few equations out of a book that look a bit flash (but suspiciously aren't). You then wait for the critiques to pour in, try to handwave the objections away whilst frenetically googling your arse off about the topics you have just heard about for the first time. You then try to nit pick what others have posted (usually failing I note) hand wave some more, make some comment about stupid evos or liberals, and promise more later. The reason you don't have a model is twofold, a) what you are trying to achieve is impossible, and b) we haven't written it for you yet.
Louis
--------------
Bye.
|
).
